CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 115Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsPublic Health Policies and EducationHealth Policy Implementation Science

Evidence-based public health: what does it offer developing countries?

McMichael, C., Waters, E., Volmink, J.·2005·Journal of Public Health
DOI 10.1093/pubmed/fdi024
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The global burden of disease and illness is primarily situated in developing countries. As developing countries have limited resources, it is particularly important to invest in public health and health promotion strategies that are effective. Systematic reviews are central to evidence-based public health and health promotion practice and policy. This paper discusses issues surrounding the relevance of evidence-based public health and systematic reviews to the health of developing countries. It argues that there is a lack of systematic reviews relevant to the health priorities of developing countries; many interventions reviewed can not be implemented in resource-poor situations; and, a limited amount of primary research is conducted in developing countries. The paper further argues that improvements in public health are determined not only by effective health services and interventions, but through an approach that includes other sectors and influences broader structural and systematic barriers to health. Given the social complexity of human development, and the inter-sections amongst different development goals, there is no question that gains in developing country public health are unlikely to emerge from systematic reviews alone, but will require decisions about inter-sectoral collaboration and social policy initiatives. Nonetheless, evidence around intervention effectiveness has an important role to play in addressing health priorities in developing countries and resource-poor areas. The public health evidence base urgently needs strengthening, with dedicated effort towards increasing the relevance of primary evidence and systematic reviews.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/pubmed/fdi024

Cites

28 of 28 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The lack of resources in low- and middle-income countries paradoxically increases the need for reliable healthcare evidence to prioritize the use of scarce resources.

    “Contrary to existing beliefs and practices, the lack of resources in low- and middle-income countries paradoxically increases the need for reliable healthcare evidence to prioritize the use of these scarce resources [4].”

    From Barriers for conducting clinical trials in developing countries—A systematic review (2018) · cites this paper as [4]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
McMichael, C., Waters, E., & Volmink, J.
Affiliations
  • La Trobe University (AU)
  • The University of Melbourne (AU)
  • University of Cape Town (ZA)
Corresponding author
McMichael, C.
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Public Health
Publisher
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Published
2005-06-01
Volume
27
Issue
2
Pages
215-221
ISSN
  • 0943-1853 (ISSN-L)
  • 1741-3842
  • 1741-3850
DOI
10.1093/pubmed/fdi024
OpenAlex
W2141190206
Cited by
115
References
28
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 5
FWCI
4.98
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Public Health (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Own your potential (DEAKIN) (submittedVersion)
  • HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • European Commission
  • La Trobe University
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Public Health Policies and Education
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
Keywords
evidence-based public health, systematic reviews, developing countries, health promotion, resource-limited settings, intersectoral collaboration, social determinants of health, health policy, global burden of disease
MeSH terms
Cooperative Behavior, Decision Making, Organizational, Developing Countries, Humans, Malaria, Policy Making, Public Health, Research Support as Topic, Review Literature as Topic, Global Health, Meta-Analysis as Topic, Publication Bias, Evidence-Based Medicine, Organizational Case Studies

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review